I have a self-rated player on my 3.5 team. She travels a lot and so was unavailable the entire season.

Until Friday. When she and her (strong) partner steamrolled another team 6-2, 6-1.

And until today, when she and that same partner double-bageled another 3.5 team.

Now, I have learned from you good people that double-bagels do not count toward your rating.

Is the same true for double-bagels by self-rated players?

I don't plan to do anything differently regarding this self-rated player -- if she gets DQ'd, she gets DQ'd.

But I'd sleep better knowing how this works!

Click to expand...

6-0 6-0 wins will not generate a strike but will raise dntrp well into strike range so that the next match played will almost certainly generate a strike. unless her opponents are low dntrp 3.5's she probably has 1 strike and will get 2nd strike as soon as you enter her next match results(assuming not another 0-0). i'll wager she'll get dq'ed within 48hrs of you entering her 4th match results.

I would say that double bagels might not affect an established player's dynamic rating because the computer doesn't know how to quantify how much better one player is from another. But double bagels should count as strikes. But I'm just guessing along with most people on here.

My understanding was that the scores were only thrown out if the EXPECTED outcome of the match was a double bagel, such as a 4.5 playing a 3.0. Since the 4.5 could not possibly win by enough of a margin to maintain their rating (they'd have to win by more than a double bagel), the scores are meaningless.

Otherwise I can't imagine why a 6-0, 6-0 win against C rated players would not be used in the dynamic calculation. It is a perfectly valid score.

From the Middle States web site ... but similiar verbage is posted on the Southern and other district web sites. I assume it is a national thing as I would not think the ratings formula could be different by region.

From a mathematics perspective I think a pure equation would have a hard time dealing with a 6-0, 6-0 score .... much like trying to divide by zero. You would think they could just program in that a score of 0-0 must be considered the same as 6-0, 6-1 or something like that ... but I think in practice the reason they do not consider the double bagel is because there is no frame of reference as to how much better or worse you are than the opponent. You could have a double bagel if A 5.0 was playing a 2.5, 3.5, or a 4.5 and without winnig at least a game it is hard mathematically to distinguish a difference.

Click to expand...

So I guess the double bagel won't help her get bumped to 4.0 for year end rating purposes, but she could conceivably get DQ'd/bumped now? Interesting . . . .

What if you double bageled everyone you played at 3.5? You get to stay 3.5??!!!

Click to expand...

Yes, I think so. In fact, I have two double-bagels in 3.5 doubles this season, and I was under the impression that they won't push me to 4.0. If you remove those results, I think the computer will keep me at 3.5.

In our captain's meeting at the beginning of the year, Southern was sending around one of the national level officers who personally deals with NTRP ratings, hears national rating appeals, etc. The reason he was at our meeting was he was giving a NTRP presentation because of the big bump up. I understand this was done through out our state.

During that presentation we were specifically told by this USTA guy that 6-0, 6-0 scores were not used to generate dynamic NTRP ratings. He said that a 6-0, 6-0 score doesn't give them anything to measure as far as how good the player giving the bagel really was on that day.

Not saying that I agree with this, but that is the USTA position and how we were told the NTRP works.

Javier may blast me again, but this comes directly from a member of the National Oversight Group late last year. The double bagels will not affect their dynamic rating but will affect their year end rating. So, DQ no; bump up, maybe.

My opinion is that the way 0,0 scores are treated may have been changed slightly over the past few years, but that is opinion only.

Yes, I think so. In fact, I have two double-bagels in 3.5 doubles this season, and I was under the impression that they won't push me to 4.0. If you remove those results, I think the computer will keep me at 3.5.

Click to expand...

I have no other information than what the web site says ... and the formula certainly may have changed.

As far as the perpetual 3.5 thing concerned, who knows if this could actually happen. However I think the player would go into a second year still as a self rate and subject to penalties such as disqualification. We had at least one example of a poster on here recently that was frustrated because he was a self rate, played other self rates or bageled opponents and started the next season as a self rate.

I don't understand the mentality of wanting to play opponents below your level. What satisfaction is there in beating players you know you can beat? The fun is beating players you didn't know you can beat!

I don't understand the mentality of wanting to play opponents below your level. What satisfaction is there in beating players you know you can beat? The fun is beating players you didn't know you can beat!

Click to expand...

I think she self-rated properly. I gave her a very strong partner (according to the computer) who plays a lot of 4.0. We'll see how it goes in the playoffs . . . .

I think she self-rated properly. I gave her a very strong partner (according to the computer) who plays a lot of 4.0. We'll see how it goes in the playoffs . . . .

Click to expand...

I should have expressly stated my premise which is that, from my observation, there is an epidemic of self under-rating, at least around here. When you've got former highly ranked juniors and Div. 4A college players playing 4.5, something ain't right.

I think she self-rated properly. I gave her a very strong partner (according to the computer) who plays a lot of 4.0. We'll see how it goes in the playoffs . . . .

Click to expand...

I highly doubt that...the mere fact that you're worried about her getting DQ'd says to me that you feel she did NOT fact properly, as very, very few self-rates do.

In my spare time I'm slowly putting together the spring/adult league win %'s of the self-rated players versus the computer rated players in this area and I'm going to forward it to our state and section to highlight the gross ineffectiveness of the self-rate program.

In fact, I don't think I've hardly ever met anyone that self-rated ABOVE 2.5 that wasn't underrated by at least half a level.

Cindy, there is just no telling if your player will get 3 strikes. The algorithym that they use is way to too complicated to decide just from scores what will happen with that player; it is all based on what the score was, what the opponents' dynamic ratings are, etc., etc. Just too hard to calculate without all the information that is in the computer and the dynamic ratings of the opponents.

Don't worry, just go play! Whenever you have a self rated player they can get DQed. That's the way of the USTA and it affects all teams equally.

From what I've seen this year the DNTRP have to be way off the charts to register (i.e. playing up and winning).

We had a self-rate junior player steamroll our entire league at #1 singles ALL year long to the tune of 12-1 (the one loss coming to my #1 C-rated singles player who didn't lose a match all year 7-5, 7-6) and he didn't get DQ'd...

With her playing doubles it masks it even more.

We had two more players also:

A self-rate 3.0 playing both 3.0 and 3.5 and he won ALL his matches at both levels and didn't get DQ'd...

And a self-rate 2.5(!!) who was playing up to 3.0 AND 3.5 and didn't lose a match and he's still a 2.5...even my state league coordinator couldn't figure this one out...

I try to use some common sense in these matters. if a self rated player double bagels someone of the same rating who isn't self rated, the self rated player needs to move up to their true rating. Of course that would go against the long established tradition of stocking your teams with ringers. but so be it. that's how I see it.